Good news. Step one in overthrowing the over-throwers.
President Donald Trump’s administration on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive his ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority nations after it was blocked by lower courts that found it was discriminatory.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate its ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries.
The Justice Department filing to the high court late Thursday argues that the federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, made several mistakes in ruling against the Trump travel policy. The government says the nation will be safer if the policy is put in place.
Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores says the ban is lawful.
Immigration officials would have 90 days to decide what changes are necessary before people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen may resume applying for visas.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called the national security concerns an after-the-fact justification for a policy that was “intended to bar Muslims from this country.”
Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.
Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.
Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.
Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you
and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently
banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds.
They are disappearing us. But we are here.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival.
Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.
Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.
If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.
00votes
Article Rating
33 Comments
Oldest
NewestMost Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dennis
6 years ago
I can only hope that our Supreme Court brings back logic and propriety to our legal system by not only lifting the present judicial injunctions which preclude the implementation of the ban, but that they determine that the ban is a lawful political issue in all respects, and can be the subject of rules and regulations affecting immigration into this country. The Supreme Court cannot and should not decide or speculate as to whether the ban or vetting is appropriate, which is what the lower courts have done, or whether the ban and any vetting process that is determined by the Trump administration is lawful, since that is a political issue and should not be available to rule upon by the Justices of the Supreme Court, or any other lower court. The Supreme Court can and must find that the political question which represents the reality of these times, and which encompasses the issue of how those political concepts of Jihad and Sharia impact on this country, are, at least, political concepts that are supportive of a ban on who may enter this country for our own protection. I am hoping the court will vacate the injunction of the ban and allow the administration to determine who will be allowed to emigrate here, limiting those who are allowed to come here to only those who will assimilate into what being an American is all about, first and foremost, accepting the secondary affect of their so-called “religious belief system,” as all prior influxes of immigrants have done after coming to the U.S.A. If it is determined that those who follow the Islamic belief system are not able to assimilate they should be precluded from this country as we would have precluded those who accepted Nazism and Fascism which are concepts that are unacceptable here.
Dean
6 years ago
Trump will probably get the decision he wants, BUT by appealing these injunctions on his authority he continues to support the fallacy that the courts have final say about anything over which they claim to have jurisdiction. The three branches of government are not coequal so long as we continue with this policy of letting activist judges claim they have authority over policy issues when they have none. Only a Constitutional showdown will remedy this imbalance by Trump ordering his agents to enforce an order such as this despite a federal judge’s attempt to interfere. In the meantime his orders that would protect us go unenforced and he is lucky he had the opportunity to appoint one judge to make the difference. What would have happened if Obama appointed him? This is not a novel argument, some of the founders were concerned about overreaching courts and Lincoln argued and did as I just suggested. If each branch cannot interpret the Constitution subject to voter acceptance or intervention, then they are not coequal. Messy but Constitutional.
Constitution is the perfect word of god, and applies for all times and places. Even after 10,000 years, we should use the same constitution and never change it.
I do the job from comfort and ease of my residence, via simplistic tasks that only demands from you a Desktop and even internet connection and I am just more joyful than ever before… After 6 months during this work and also i got compensated for in whole Thirty six Thousand usd… Mainly I earn near eighty bucks/hr and work for three to four hrs on a regular basis.And awesome factor about this task is usually that you can also arrange time when you get the job done and for how long as you like and you generate a check week by week.—–>>>> learn by clicking here how to do it right now
Yes, not being a lawyer, that’s what puzzles me. How can the courts take jurisdiction over something they have no right to, and what does the executive do about it in such a case?
I am an attorney and it doesn’t surprise me. Activists judges have been trying to use their judicial authority to interfere with policy since our beginning, but since the persistent overreaches regarding affirmative action pursuant to the 64 and 65 CRA, it has become common. Trump is subject to and influenced by the advise of lawyers including Sessions and they have been almost brainwashed with their beliefs about the threats to our democracy if judicial review is not controlling. Lincoln was a lawyer that explicitly believed in the equal authority of each branch to interpret the Constitution and did ignore court orders during his prosecution of the war. I actually disagree with part of Lincoln’s disagreement but it did not endanger our Republic. I believe the threat of dictatorship by activists judges, particularly SCOTUS if the political fortunes served the regressive left, is at least equal to an imperial presidency. Even the attitude of some apparently Conservative judges to proactively acquiesce to the authority of elected officials whenever possible despite the absence of clear Constitutional authority, such as Roberts motivation regarding his creative justification of Obamacare, has repeatedly provided an expansion of power in the government that was never imagined by the framers of the Constitution. Therefore the system works against the individual rights contemplated in the Constitution in various ways when insufficient discipline of the “legal authorities” falters. A showdown would entail SCOTUS not only overruling the excessive interference by a lower court but forcing them to accept the right of the President to ignore such unconstitutional overreach despite the lower court’s injunction. His temporary acquiescence not only leaves us vulnerable to the threats he intended to curtail, but reaffirms the lower courts “authority” even if only temporarily.
Let us not forget that the congressional branch intentionally make up laws that allow wiggle room for interpretation. Many laws are nebulous in their nature. I am not sure if it is negligence, ignorance, or political favoritism but that is the reason we are in a swamp now fighting in court with laws which should not be there in the first place. Obama said, “there is a blind spot in the constitution” and he is using it to his advantage even now as a shadow government.
The framers could not anticipate everything which is why the Constitution can be amended. But all of it including the preservation of a democratic republic depends on maintaining the cultural values on which all of it depends. If a judge is doing his job, an ambiguous provision that can be interpreted and applied so as to violate Constitutional restrictions is void for that reason. However your concern relates directly to the judicial philosophy supported even by so-called Conservatives like Roberts that allows wide discretion to administrative departments to interpret and enforce generally acceptable legislation. So when we combine such conservatives with those that really don’t care about Constitutional limits, we get an EPA that is able to violate individual property rights with inadequate due process protection. However, this problem stems, in my view, from from the failure of the Constitution to sufficiently enumerate property rights because they started with a compromise on “property” because of the slavery issue and replaced it with “the pursuit of happiness”. From an abstract frame of reference I am satisfied that “pursuit” protects property rights but as a practical issue it has become meaningless.
I must add that the framers understood the meaning and value of individual rights based on their experience, education and knowledge of the centuries of struggle to achieve them, therefore they presumed they were “self-evident” because they were so obvious to them. Rights are not self-evident or they wouldn’t be rejected almost universally. From freedom of speech and religion to bearing arms, those rights are highly abstract concepts derived from a truly enlightened understanding of the nature of man and governments. Such abstract knowledge has to be taught and even indoctrinated in the young to be preserved. Between those that mistakenly presume they are self-evident and those that don’t care or oppose them for ideological reasons, we get what we have now regardless of having the Constitution as the supreme law of our nation.
I have, for quite sometime, been interested in the ‘missing 13th Amendment’.
As you are an attorney and have knowledge of the Constitution, I thought you may know the reason why the 13th Amendment was not ratified. Thank you in anticipation of your answer.
That’s an interesting reply Dean, but you mention and the constitution often mentions “self evident” and abstract rights. You say these must be taught. I say whom do you suggest would teach these abstract thoughts? What about our right to keep what we earn? Yet the government feels it has a right to steal our income and or property. Of course, I can go on infinitude you know what I mean. My thoughts on this is that we should follow the rule of Jesus Christ. The laws concerning objective rights are clearly printed out for us in the New Testament. Yet the objection is in favor of subjective rights so that we can allow murders via abortion etc. The Constitution and indeed the Judicial Branch should follow these rules if we are to accomplish a fair and balanced future for everyone. Thanks for your reply Dean.
Yes, exactly right. The Refugee Act gives the President sole and exclusive authority to determine immigration policy. Immigrants and their proxies (ACLU, etc.) have no standing to sue because the Refugee Act does not give them the right to sue.
The First Amendment arguments (i.e. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free excerise thereof,” i.e. Congress will not establish a state sponsored church or religion or make laws preventing states from regulating religion) are not applicable.
Citizens of other countries, not residing in the US, have absolutely no US Constitutional rights and no standing to sue in US courts.
Mahou Shoujo
6 years ago
Stop asking, start telling the courts to enforce the laws.
Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj135d:
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!mj135d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash135MarketMagicPay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj135d..,..
To be on campus at ESC, you have to be engaged in school purposes. School purposes = going to class, library, etc. Protesting and disrupting others engaged in school purposes = trespassing = you need to go to jail.
Yes, we are moving in the direction of vigilance committees where local neighborhoods protect their own and don’t rely on the police. When the police and government can not protect the citizens, then people have a right to defend themselves and form group protection committees.
In the LA riots about Rodney King, the Korean business community were on the roofs of their businesses daring the Africans to come and try to loot or burn their stores down. The Africans learned to avoid the Korean shops unless they wanted their heads blown off.
Drew the Infidel
6 years ago
To say the travel ban from terror hot spots is a muslime ban is the equivalent of saying the border control efforts of illegal immigration from Mexico is a Catholic ban. It is not an afterthought to “ban muslimes from the country” as Trump had stated in the election campaign, where candidates say all sorts of verbose and opportunistic things. When was the last time you ever heard of a court making a ruling based on a newspaper story?
The case should have been dismissed at the district court because the plaintiffs did not have standing because:
1. There was no injury because their is no “right” to immigrate to the US which was violated,
2. There was no “case or controversy” because their was no injury,
3. Immigrants can’t sue their way into the US because immigration matters have been delegated by Congress to the President and left to his sole discretion.
Agreed, except immigration matters fall under the Constitutionally delegated powers of the Executive branch under the provision of his chief duty being to keep the citizenry safe.
Well, Congress is still passing laws to regulated immigration and leaving it to the Executive Branch to enforce them:
— United States Refugee Act of 1980,
— Immigration and Nationality Act,
— Migration and Refugee Assistance Act.
See wikipedia for any of these laws passed by Congress.
I just saw that Moslems can be banned from the US on the basis that they are members of a “Totalitarian Party,” i.e. Islam. See wikipedia: “United States Waiver of Inadmissibility.”
With all things “Immigration,” there are plenty of laws on the books but no will from the politicians or business community to enforce them.
GR Arnold
6 years ago
I sincerely hope the SCOTUS sees the wisdom behind Trump’s travel ban and the running of the lower courts are overturned. This is so desperately needed. It also needs to go beyond 90 days.
Robert Batchelor
6 years ago
This is a good step. Let’s hope The Supreme Court doesn’t disappoint like they did on Obamacare.
AR154U☑ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ DEPLORABLE 2020
6 years ago
These poor, poor men,… leaving their women and children in ISLAMIC WAR ZONES,… while they seek shelter in friendly host Nations !!!
.
So brave of them !!!
EVERYONE of those clowns posing as judges in that lower court need to be put on notice that if and when ANY INNOCENT AMERICANS are murdered as a result of their negligence they will be prosecuted for accessory to murder
It is the conflict of our age, yet no one dares talk about it. The true story of the Islamic Supremacist war on free speech as told by those on the front lines fighting for our First Amendment rights,
.
Pamela Geller tells her own story of how she became one of the world's foremost activists for the freedom of speech,
individual rights, and equality of rights for all. "It's my story, it's what happens when someone fights for freedom in America today,"
Geller explained.
Today Islamic supremacists are demanding more accommodation of Islamic principles
and practices than ever, and daily growing more aggressive in eroding our freedoms – with politically
correct public officials only too happy..
Popular conservative blogger Pamela Geller and New York Times bestselling author
Robert Spencer sound a wake-up call for Americans to stop the Obama administration from limiting our
hard-won...
The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks is a groundbreaking documentary on the controversy
over the planned Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero.